State of M.P v. Hiralal

8 SCC 774Reported decision2004#18300 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,073 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing State of M.P v. Hiralal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 vs. Shri Harish Bhasin

ITA/570/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…locked‖ or ―shop closed‖ or ―addressee not in station‖, due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu[(2004) 8 SCC 774 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 393] .) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.‖ 7. This presumpti…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 vs. Shri Harish Bhasin

ITA/572/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…locked‖ or ―shop closed‖ or ―addressee not in station‖, due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu[(2004) 8 SCC 774 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 393] .) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.‖ 7. This presumpti…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -15 vs. Shri Harish Bhasin

ITA/574/2023HC Delhi09 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…locked‖ or ―shop closed‖ or ―addressee not in station‖, due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu[(2004) 8 SCC 774 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 393] .) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.‖ 7. This presumpti…

M/S Babu Har Govind Dayal Trust, Lucknow vs. Inocme Tax Officer-(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/LKW/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Babu Har Govind Dayal Trust V. The Ito (Exemption) 26/1-G, Wazir Hasan Road Lucknow Near Gokhle Marg Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabtb2939E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. P. Sinha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 07 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143

…use locked’, or ‘shop closed’, or ‘addressee not in station’, due service has to be presumed, [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh: AIR 1992 SC 1604; State of M.P. vs. Hiralal and Ors.: (1966) 7 SCC 523 and V. Raja Kumari V. P. subbarama Naidu and Anr.: (2004) 8 SCC 774].” 15. The Assessing Officer, in the remand proceedings, did not deem it appropriate to issue fresh summons to the alleged donors of the assessee, as indicated above. This, to us, was not proper. It amounted to nonsuiting the assessee neck and crop, i.e., summarily without following the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer, as such…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. Sri Kavivarapu Venu, E.G.Dist

ITTA/707/2017HC Telangana22 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

State of M.P v. Hiralal (8 SCC 774) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax